Magic. I wish they would come up with magic rules and spells that had a visual component. Examples: I'd like to be able to zap foes and turn them into sheep, or tree stumps, or newts, or rock pillars—something harmless. But something that results in replacing one model with another. I'd like for there to be terrain-based summoning spells that mark the tabletop battlefield for the rest of the game. Rain of Boulders, Create Crevasse, Summon Wall, Geyser of Flame, Pit of Tar, Conjure Whirlwind, Pool of Mud....
Summoning. I would like to counter magical summoning with other mundane, non-magic forms of summoning. Musician models get used to request reinforcements by sounding off or sending drum messages. Standard bearers ride off the edge...dice are rolled...dice are rolled...they ride back in with extra troops (who were 'nearby'). Have a rule that makes finding 'nearby' troops more and more likely each time a foes' magic summoning succeeds.
Some of them, but did they ever have models to use? Geyser of Fire would have effects like a fireball spell but would sit on the table from then on being a hazard to navigation. Rain of Boulders would leave a chariot breaking boulder field. Turning a Giant into a Rock Pillar would result in that terrain item blocking LOS for the rest of the game.
True enough. There were really only templates that would be placed rather than whole pieces of terrain. I'm just griping. I really like the reinforcements idea. It would give the musician more of an active role in each army rather than the passive state they've always been in.
I agree but this is only an initial test. They may have gone overboard and obviously didnt hit everything they need to but hopefully they will see how these changes do then adjust again accordingly. Better than no testing and just releasing the book for sure.
I believe the first one was based mostly on the SCGT tournament results, which of course had a different points system, and I think it was rushed out. They have now had a year or so of play testing, and incredible amounts of feedback. This new one I believe will be a lot smoother, with more bugs worked out. As for the magic given the Sylvaneth and Ironjawz spells I think the magic is coming back a little differently but 6 spells per army would not be unheard of. But probably released with each battletome instead. Constant evolution of a game is an amazing concept, but not an easy one to rollout. Especially among two or more systems.
I would really find it odd if they'd do that with battletomes...I'd expect them to put it either in a generals handbook or possibly a wizards handbook of sorts. If you start splitting coremechanics like magic across multiple battletomes people will be confused as hell. Not to mention that you then run into severe issues with 1 faction having an old outdated tome. Do they wait all the way till a new tome comes out before they get a magic update? Do they just randomly get a new tome that only really updates a paragraph cuz it updates the base spells? What happens if you face one with a much newer battletome and both are magic heavy armies? It'd be a disaster... Admittadly, that's not to say they can't put minor changes in the various battletomes, but an overhaul of the basic-spells or other core aspects of magic would need to be in a general-purpose, or magic-specific book. Not in a battletome.... As for @pendrake 's idea... yea it'd be nice for magic to do a bit more. Currently it seems to boils down to A) Mortal wounds B) A minor buff (+1 to save, re-rolls) C) Summon reinforcements.... There's some minor variations in the attacking spells, some work better against hordes, some better against cowardly units etc, but these difference could be made much greater. Hell give us spells that deal regular wounds if that means we can actually make a dedicated wizard to bombard large formations or one to snipe the powerfull monsters.... similarly spells that change the terrain, summon hazards, spells that last more than a single turn, spells that add a mechanic (e.g. a spell that invokes terror making a unit liable to ignore orders and flee).. there's so much more that can be done with magic..
As basespells? Christ they're eager to sell multiple tomes to people who don't even play the specific race then... Also, if anything I'd had expected tzeentch to be the first to have that...
Sorry it was bonesplitterz not ironjaws, but yeah every wizard in a sylvaneth allegiance gets the deepwood spell access, they can choose one of the 6 and same for the bonesplitterz.
The spells are based on your allegiance, so the only reason to buy the battletome is if you are playing that specific race. Seraphon cant cast Sylvaneth spells for example. They only started doing that after the first GHB came out which is why only bonesplitters and Sylvaneth have it. Its very likely they are going to update all the other battletomes to have them as well, you can see the new stormcast previews to see that they are including some similar things for them in their updated battletome. I dont see a problem with it, why create an additional book to buy when most people are buying the battletome already? Or why increase the cost of the GHB by including all of them? It does suck for those that have bought battletomes already, but it is better going forward I think.
the GHB wouldn't need to be more expensive, unless you get a proper magic overhaul. If it's just a handfull of extra spells that are mostly just flavor then it's completly fine to have them in the battletome. However, if it creates significant differences between the various faction's magic then you'd kinda need to have the battletome to vaguely know what they're capable off. Which is also why I'd expect it to create a bit of a mess... admittadly that might be wishfull thinking in how much I'd expect them to overhaul it
What you're talking about being a mess is already the case though. Bonesplitterz, Sylvaneth and Tzeentch all have their own spells/allegiance abilities/allegiance items. And it works fine in practice as it is. The more pages they add to a book the more they make it cost, its just the way it is.
Is that not going back to Warhammer Fantasy? I never played it but the magic seems pretty diverse from the book, I like the idea of summoning up a tornado to send my opponents into the wind.
I'd like terrain and intervening models to matter. Shooting in this game is op. I hope the handbook adds better cover saves and allows screening of characters and units. I'd personally like it if they went back to the can't shoot while engaged rule but I know they won't do that.
For some missile weapons though that doesn't make sense, for example, breath weapons like the the salamander's, a sally would still use that breath weapon in combat in all likelihood, and the bastiladon's searing beam, there's a skink on the back of the bastiladon whose job is purely shooting the beam and you'd totally use that if you were in combat. But it does seem stupid for things like blowpipes.
Just use some common sense... "do I need to switch weapons, as in drop on and pick up the other, to use both my ranged & melee weapons?" If the anwser is yes you probably shouldn't be able to use both in the same turn... A bigger issue is selling the change it to the guy who just bought a bunch of ranged troops to wreck face and now has a significantly weaker army while the opposing Bastiladon still merely shoots away. @Drofnum I'd freaking hope they don't prize their books based on length... god forbid they discover that they can make the typsetting a tad larger and charge more in that case... I'd assume it's based on content & adding 1 paragraph should not have a significant influence on prize. @Crowsfoot yea I think so. Never really played it either, but the magic system was something that Always seemed very well done in warhammer fantasy. Whereas AoS seems to have an extremely basic system by comparison. Though the addition of those spells may make it better. Though it begs the question why they did it this way.
My thoughts they saw how KOW was playing with a couple of spells and thought they would try it, I may be clutching at straws with that theory.